SamSaid!

OIL FOR FOOD

     What could be better — a post-Gulf War UN sponsored program that would allow the sale of Iraqi oil with the proceeds going for food for the hungry and needy Iraqi people. The UN at its best, right?? But people in powerful positions can be very clever and conniving. With the help of some his UN and European buddies, Saddam came up with a voucher program for the sale of the oil. The vouchers were given to some of Saddam's close buddies at the UN and in Western Europe (say, France?). The possessors of the vouchers could buy Iraqi oil at very cheap prices and then re-sell the oil on the world narkets at a much higher price  — pocketing the difference. Well, not all of the difference, since some of the illicit profits were kicked back to Saddam for deposits in banks around the world. Even beyond the kickbacks, the voucher scheme created a lot of millionaires or made current millionairs a lot richer. No small change here, big bucks. Did the Iraqi people get some of the promised food?  Sure, with what was left after the voucher looting. And right in the middle of this whole mess is Slimy Jacques Chirac (France) and some of his close allies and Kofi Annan (UN) whose son is directly involved.

     The guy who is investigating this mess is Paul Volcker, an American with a no-nonsense, pull-no-punches reputation. The key, of course, is getting documentary evidence beyond what our troops have recovered in Baghdad (this really scares the French and Kofi).  Volcker can do 3 things. A) issue a hard nosed report that identifies how the scheme worked, the names of voucher recipients , the beneficiaries of the skimming, the amounts of oil traded and the volume of dollars skimmed off the top. Left to his own devices, Mr. Volcker will do that if he gets the needed info.  Then B) he might issue a comprehensive report condemning the whole scheme but stop short of identifying the voucher recipients/beneficiaries  — or the foreign governments involved. And C) issue a report based on partial information that falls short of specific identification beyond Saddam and his inner circle. And this option would be dragged out for some time while searches for records (mysteriously  missing) continues.See UN.

     You can just here the buzzing in the UN halls  — “Hey, if you guys want our cooperation and support in post war Iraq, tell the Americans to get off this Oil for Food issue. What's past is past  — leave it alone. Pull off the bloodhounds”.  Now, do you think that Slimy Jacque Chirac would do something like that to save the fannies of his buddies and co-conspirators?

     There were several strong reasons why France did not want to see the fall of Saddam, and the oil for food program clearly is one of them. And that goes a long way toward explaining why they sand-bagged the US in the UN 2 years ago.   

     When Kerry was asked if the Oil for Food investigation should continue, he said, “Yes and No”.

ABUSE

     The prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is a royal mess. Most Americans have a hard time believing that our troops committed such acts, but they did. Such barbarous conduct is normally attributed to “others”, not our guys. And it couldn't have come at a worse time. The reputations of the Army and our country have been indelibly stained. Military and political leaders  — right up to the President  — have denounced the conduct in unmistabable terms. But for the media people, that isn't enough. 

     In reading accounts of the Iraqi prisoner abuse or hearing and seeing the TV coverage, you'd think that prisoner abuse had been discovered (or uncovered) for the first time ever in military history, and, of course, the perpetrator is the Great Satan  –  America. Maybe a little bit of reflection is in order. Attilla wasn't too gentle in treating Roman prisoners, and Hilter elevated the disposition of prisoners and detainees to unimaginable new lows. The Japanese “abused” American prisoners by the Bataan Death March, and I'd guess that the US Military were none too kind to the imprisoned Indians during the Indian wars in the latter half of the 19th century. Add to this the blood stained track record of Joe Stalin. History is a continuum of conflicts in which winners had slaves and losers were slaves. Does that qualify as “abuse”, and how does Abu Ghraib compare?

     My beef is with the media people who will not let the prisoner issue die or subside –  much less putting it in perspective. They are bound and determined to keep ”abuse” on the front page while the throat cutting and beheading of Journalist Danny Pearl and Nick Berg are allowed to fade off into the distance as unfortunate isolated events attributed to a handful of raghead fanatics.  Not surprising. We should bear in  mind that repeated studies show that 85% of writers and TV people are liberal Democrats. Naturally, they will say that their “professionalsm” assures their reporting impartiality and that they are not influenced by partisan politics. If you buy that, I have a big bridge I'll sell you cheap.

     The majority of the media people plus the Hollywood left are determined to bring down George Bush, and they categorically reject the notion that blowing more air in the “abuse” balloon plays into the hands of the Muslim terrorists. But it does. And of course, their efforts are supported by the usual group of Congressional blowhards in Washington who see their own re-election as paramount. They just don't seem to care that they are placing our own troops in more and more danger as the prisoner abuse story drags on day after day.

    The war in Iraq is a big gamble to head off global terrorism and reduce the chances of more “9-11s”. No guarantee here, but sitting back fat dumb and happy awaiting the next attack is not very re-assuring. It is important to this country that we prevail in Iraq, and a united approach is needed. Prisoner abuse is unspeakably bad, but we shouldn't take our eye off the ball. We have a war to win. A hostile media motivated by partisan politics does not provide solid support for 135,000 soldiers risking their lives every day.

     The photos of Danny Pearl and Nick Berg should be on the front page  — not Abu Ghraib.     

MM

     Now what on earth does MM stand for? The possibilities are almost endless, but a number immediately come to mind. Could it be Movie Maker, Misguided Missile, Mental Mau-Mau, Motor Mouth, Mealy-Mouth Mugger, Malevolent Malcontent, Mendacious Mercenary, Massive Maggot, or,  –  perhaps even Michael Moore. If by chance, Michael Moore is the targeted term, then all of the other MM possibilities apply. As you can tell, I don't have much use for Mr. Moore.

      It is common knowledge that Michael Moore is the Chairman of the Hate George Bush Society. Not dislike George Bush, or disagree with George Bush, or oppose George Bush  — HATE George Bush. I don't deny Mr Moore his free speech rights, but I draw the line at espousing hatred. I would like to think that hate mongers have no place in our poltical discourse. But no so with Mr Moore. Currently, Mr. Moore is peddling a movie entitled “Fahrenheir 9/11″ in which he attempts to destroy not only George Bush but the rest of his family as well and also place his spin on recent history. Disney has stopped its Miramax Film Division from distributing the film because of its political vitriol and its outright lying. In addition, Alan Murray, a highly respected journalist and author, (CNBC, Capitol Report, Washington Week in Review, Wall Street Journal) challenged the veracity of many of Moore's assertions in the film and found them to be false, as did the 9/11 Commission still finishing its work. Mr. Moore dismissed Murray's finding with “I'll stick to my sources”. In a Wall Street Journal article, Mr Murray said, “Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't to be confused with Truth Telling”  –  obviously a conservative estimate. But in the Hitlerian tradition of the Big Lie, Moore rolls along on his pattern of deceit.

     I didn't vote for Bill Clinton  — either time  — and I can't imagine the circumstances that would tempt me to vote for Hillary. I don't respect either one, but I don't HATE them. Clinton was an unscrupulous degenerate and a pathological liar and Hillary falls way short of honesty in handling her affairs. I wouldn't trust her as far as I can throw an elephant. But that is a far step from HATING them.

     Just take a look at Moore. I'm not sure he knows a barber and his unshaven visage conveys a slovenly unclean appearance. He looks like a slob, acts like a slob, talks like a slob  — face it, he is a slob. If I had to take sides in political debate, one look at him is enough to tell me what side I'd prefer. And to boot, his corpulence suggests a legacy from the beltway Balloon, Ted Kennedy.  

     In the months to come, you will probably see a lot of Mr. More. Take a good look and consider his appearance and hateful utterances.

     Unclean  — that's a good descriptive term.

ADS

     Forgetfulness has been described as the harbinger of old age. I'm sure someone famous said that, but I forget who it was. It has also been said that irritibility is a sure sign of aging. Now, I know a little bit about that. Ask any senior citizen. Older folks of normal sensibilities become irritated about relatively trivial matters that in other years would have brought a ho-hum. Let me give you an example.

     I read a lot  –  books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and articles on the internet. When I sit down, more often that not I will reach for something to read. That beats the garbage offered on most of the TV channels. If I want vulgar or obscene language, I'd sooner read in in quiet than have it blasted in the familty room. A pet peeve that irritates me about advertising is than in so many magazines, ads are permanently inserted between the pages of the magazine so that when one opens the magazine it zooms to the ad page– not the page desired by the reader. After viewing the table of contents I want to read an article on Page 26, but when I seek P 26  I am looking at a big ad inserted at Page 48  — whether I like it or not. And it isn't as though there is only one of these ads. Oh, no, several are interspersed throughout the magazine, and they are permanently affixed. It becomes a real struggle to read an article from one end to the other without defeating 2-3 advertising stop overs.

     Now don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to advertising as such. But these magazine ads are something else. When I get on an airplane and start to read the magazines provided, I systematically tear out the offensive ads. My wife frowns on this, so I wait until her attention wanders and then resume ripping out the inserted ads. When I am done, I then liesurely read the articles I want to read, flipping the pages without interruption.  

      Two things. First I will not patronize any of the goods or services advertised in the offensively located ads, and second, I will tear out the ads at the first opportunity and dispose of them. The adverstisers and publishers are free to insert the ads and I am free to rip them out. Seems fair to me.

Think  I might be irritating anyone?

JAMIE

     The Democrats on the supposedly non-partisan 9/11 Commission were drooling over the prospect of forcing Condoleeza Rice to testify under oath. They just couldn't wait to get their fangs in her hide. But they obviously underestimated the mettle of Ms. Rice who more than capably handled herself under interrogation. She made those would-be Torquemadas look like bumbling amatuers, and their desire to finger point at the Administration failed dismally. In my view, Ms Rice did more for race relations in the US than all of the Jacksons put together (Reggie, Jesse, Michael, Janet, et al). I enjoyed every minute of the proceedings.

     Among the 9/11 Commission inquisitors was a lady named Jamie Gorelick (pronounced Gor-ell'-ick) who was a deputy Attorney General working for Janet Reno in the Clinton Administration. Years back, laws were passed that precluded the FBI from sharing information with the other law enforcement organizations  — specifically including the intelligence gathering agencies. In 1995-6 Ms Gorelick authored correspondence uging that “the wall” between these organizations be extended BEYOND what was required by statute,  i.e., even LESS communication among agencies and the FBI.   Now, in retrospect, a major contributor to the 9/11 tragedies has been identified as the failure of our law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies to share information  —  a sharing that Ms Gorelick strongly opposed. In testifying, Ms Rice went to some lengths to point out the communications failures that led to the failure to intercept the 9/11 terrorists. But there sits Ms. Gorelick chomping at the bit to finger point and blame the White House while being guilty of contributing to the problem herself. Via the Patriot Act, the “wall” has been removed, and information sharing is now mandated.

     The Wall Street Journal has led the charge to have Ms Gorelick removed from the Commission. Her conflict of interest is obvious, and she alibis that her earlier comments (in writing) were “misunderstandings”.  Richard Clarke's book is gospel, but Ms Gorelick's comments from her own mouth are “misunderstandings. Everybody got that?? So much for a non-partisan Commission. How much about Ms Gorelick have you heard on NBC, CBS, or ABC, and how much have you read in the major newspapers of the US  — except for the WSJ?

     If she had any principles or integrity, Ms Gorelick would resign from the Commission. Fat chance. The noon balloon, Ted Kennedy, would blow a gasket.  

A MESS

     Iraq is surely a mess. Maybe a colossal mess spiralling out of control or maybe a manageable mess in which a few rays of sunshine penetrate the gloomy overcast. In a country as polarized as ours, it is difficult to get a reliable “read” from the mass media. We get our daily dose of news about US casualties, suicide bombers, rocket grenades, insurgents, Al-Quada, et al, but it almost seems as though there is a concerted effort to suppress news about schools back in operation, women involved in goverment, the resumption of oil production, potable water, electric power, transportation, hospitals, food supplies etc etc. There is little doubt that the vast majority of Iraqis are better off now than at any time in their lives. For sure we have our peaceniks who wouldn't lift a finger if Saddam and his henchmen marched down 5th Avenue randomly shooting pedestrians while his Al-Queda terrorists were bombing bridges. They are the ones who would rally behind the likes of Ted Koppel using his ABC access to champion his anti-war agenda.

     It is now May 1st and in 60 days we will turn over the Government to a tribunal of Iraqis  — backed by US muscle. This is a good way to evolve into true democracy because it will require a diverse group of Iraqis to deal with a lot of common problems in running a government. It makes sense to have a mix of women, men, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds making decisions thru collective effort. They have got to learn how to think “big”. It won't be easy, but it is a sound prerequisite step before national elections in December of 2005. Their task will not be easy since a ragtag group of terrorists will try in every way to defeat their aims and goals. Just is it is critical to us for the interim government to succeed, it is equally critical for the terrorists to have it fail. For all of our power, we cannot guarantee success. The only people who can do that are the Mullah, Ayatollah, and Cleric leaders of the different religious sects. If they continue to advance their exhortation to kill and attack, the fragile effort at demcracy will fail. Al Sistani (the Shia chiftain)  is the key guy. He has to step forward and lead. If he fails, chaos is almost guaranteed.

     I think the USA made the right decision to change the Iraqi regime. But in the last analysis, it will happen only if the Iraqis want it to happen. There is a lot riding on the next 60 days, and the next 6 months. And the role of the US is critical. It is scary to think of a USA election result that amounts to “cut and run”. For most Americans, it may come down to a simple choice  — “in a wartime setting, are you more comfortable with George Bush or John Kerry”?  Maybe just that simple.

JEFF

     Jeff Jacoby is a columnist who writes for the Boston Globe. Recently he authored an article entitled, “Everyone got it wrong before 9-11″. It is an article well worth reading. While it is a bit long to repeat the entire text here,  the last 3 paragraphs summarize his thoughts very well.

     “Prior to 9-11, no president from Jimmy Carter through Geroge W. Bush properly understood the danger of Islamist terrorism. None recognized that we were under attack by a ruthless enemy bent on global conquest and the destruction of Western liberty.  

     Far more important is what has happened since 9-11:  The Bush administration went to war. It destroyed Al Qaida's base in Afghanistan, toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, turned Pakistan into a terror-war ally, and intimidated Libya into ending its hunt for nuclear weapons. Crucially, it has demolished the perception of America as —  in Bin Ladin's words  — a 'weak horse' that bolts at the first gunshot.

     How you regard that peformance –  as invaluable wartime leadership by the President or as a fraud “made up in Texas' –  is likely to decide how you vote this November”.

     We no doubt will have to suffer through months of campaign rhetoric between now and November, but I think Mr Jacoby has hit the nail on the head. Too bad it can't be required reading at the polls.

     Mr Jacoby's Email address is   Jacoby@globe.com.

20-20 HINDSIGHT

     Anyone who thinks the 9/11 Commission is non-partisan should go back and read the funny papers. Imagine all of the tax payer money being spent in this highly partisan finger pointing endeavor. If it WERE truly non-partisan, I wouldn't mind; but it has been transformed into another Bush bashing affair. I was particularly incensed at the tactics of Commission member Ben-Veniste when interrogating Condoleeza Rice. He prefaced his questions with, “Can you deny the possibility that….”   A graduate school prof told us many years ago that tactics like these are used by phonies and charlatans. He said, “Any time someone starts a question  with “Isn't it possible that….”, or ” Can you deny the possibility that…”, just refuse to answer the question. Almost anything is “possible”, but the phonies like to transform “possible” into “likely”. I admired Ms. Rice's spunk in heading him off at the pass. I wish she had said, “Mr Ben-Viste, is it possible that your wife is making love with your gardener while you are here at the meeting?” “Is it POSSIBLE”?

     But aside from the partisan hi-jinks, there is one glaring fact that should be apparent to all thinking Americans. By design, the FBI and CIA were specifically chartered  to operate separately so it should come as no surprise that they did not cooperate closely in sharing information  — about terrorism or anything else. And that goes way back before 9/11. Agonizing over this Congressional folly accomplishes nothing  — particularly by hindsight.   Second, under Clinton the FBI was way off the mark by viewing terror attacks as criminal matters and not acts of war. Why on earth should we extend criminal legal rights to terrorists? That's why I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Guantanamo inmates. If they are captives in the war or terrorism, we should show away the domestic legal niceties and tell the left wing lawyers to bug off.

     And while I am in such a good mood, I can't resist a few comments about Maureen Dowd of the NY Times. She is the one who labelled the other coalition forces in Iraq as “a gaggle of poodles and lackeys”. Isn't that a real boost for the good guys in a tough situation? Everytime I see the smirking image of Ms Dowd, the same question crosses my mind  –  “I wonder where she parked her broom?”

MASTERFUL

     The Masters golf tournament held annually at Augusts, Georgia simply has to be the premier sporting event in the world. Marvelous scenery, a perfect environment, a splendid atmosphere, knowledgeable and appreciative fans, exemplary conduct, and the best players in the world. Every year it seems to get better, but 2004 will be hard to beat. First, the dramatic farewell of golfing's legend, Arnold Palmer, who played in the event for 50 years (he won 4 times), followed by the come-from-behind dramatic win by Phil Mickelson. The mere thought of getting 5 birdies over the last seven is mind-boggling  — and then capped by winning the tournamant on the last stroke at the last hole on the last day. Hollywood's best script writers could hardly top that. From a very good golfer dubbed by some as a perennial loser he became a very popular champion in just one shot.

     In watching the entire 5 hour contest, I was impressed by the excellence of all that I saw. Well dressed, polite, courteous people  –  no insulting finger waving, no beer guts hanging over  inadequate belts, no drunks barfing behind trees, no coarse filty language and no loud mouth hecklers in the audience. It was a class act from start to finish  –  all in an incomparable setting. Just think  –  only 51 weeks to go until the 2005 Masters.

     In days where TV and the newspapers are dominated by killings, shootings, child abuse, garish trials, suicide bombers and other types of coarse, sub-human, or bestial behavior, a 5 hour respite from the downside of humanity is most welcome. The Masters offered that and more. Do the Tournament sponsors discriminate?  Yes, they probably do  — and more power to them. I've had enough of a society where “progress” is measured by destroying standards of behavior to satisfy “rights”. Do you really think that Margaret Burke can bring anything to the Masters except grief and friction??

     Lucky Mickelson. He will be able to play in the Masters every year from now on. And I'll be watching as long as I can! 

PUMP PRICES

     It is only April, but the issues for the upcoming Presidential election are lining up for serious debate. During the next 6+ months, we will be getting a bellyfull of commentary about the Iraqi war, the War on Terrorism, 9/11, exit from Iraq, Roe v. Wade, Gay marriage, Welfare reform, Judicial appoinmemnts, tax hikes, tax cuts, and use of steroids by ball players. Who knows what else, but whatever the issue, it won't be hard to distinguish between George Bush and John Kerry.

     Nothwithstanding all of the above, a pivotal issue could very well be the price of gasoline at the pump. As the prices climb over $2.00/gallon, the Kerryites no doubt will try to pin the “big, bad, oil” label on Geo B and Dick Cheney. But maybe this kind of debate will be of benefit to Americans long range. Oil of course, is a finite resource, and demand is getting higher an higher as the Chines and Indians add to the demand curve now supported by Western Europe, the USA and Japan. Stronger demand and a limited supply means higher prices. And how well the Saudis know that. Also, the US dollar has fallen in value so the Saudis will want more dollars to buy their product. Hence the Saudi decision to cut back production (sort of like an old capitalist trick) to drive up prices.

     All of this reminded me of an excellent lecture offered a number of years back by an eminently qualified academician whose name escapes me. He said the the US would never get serious about a national energy policy until pump prices exceeded $3.00 per gallon. In today's terms, that would be $3.50 per gallon. Only then, he said would we get serious about gas effecient cars, energy conservation measures, mass transit, enhancing petroleum supplies, and developing new energy sources. It was his view that until it REALLY hurts, nothing major will be done  –  just 4 eyed balding egghead professors riding to work on a bicycle urging that we not drill in the Arctic, not drill offshore, not drill in the mountains, and not look for new oil sources. I think he is right. Until the gas prices hit a critical point, the political gamesmanship will continue in Washington. Even now, an ATTEMPT at an energy policy is bottled up in the Senate my Mr Kerry and his buddies on the left side of the aisle.

     I wonder if the mainstream media will point this out?  In 2004?  Come on!